Ebay And Shopping.

[Puffer]

I only raised the issue of a far-forward heel to show that my 'formula' was not foolproof - one cannot increase the distance (between heel tip and wearer's heel) without limit.   Sorry if this misled you.   And I really only homed-in on the back of the wearer's heel as a datum because this can be established quite easily, whilst the back of the shoe or the 'ball' of the foot could not be.

I'm not suggesting the Zanotti would be difficult to walk in (compared with a more conventionally placed high heel).   I am pointing out the obvious - that if the (raised) heel is so far forward that it causes the foot to tip backwards, then walking is more or less impossible.   This would (I hope) never arise in practice as, aesthetics aside, such a design would be pointless - although nearly flat 'negative heel' footwear does apparently exist.   If one thinks of the foot as a potential see-saw, the fulcrum (heel) must be far enough back for the wearer not to fall backwards; his (or indeed her!) centre of gravity must remain in front of the fulcrum.   I think the 'heel-less' shoes (which look hazardous but are, I gather, not hard to walk in) demonstrate this - unless one leans backwards and the centre of gravity becomes shifted behind the heel tip.

I can now see your point about the relevance of the 'ball' - or, rather, the point at which the shoe sole parts company with the ground, as you now put it.   That makes sense and I think you are right to identify (as we now do) that the key obstacles to walking in a high-heeled shoe are related closely to the point of impact of (a) the heel tip on the ground; followed by (b) the sole on the ground; with (a) and (b) then repeated.   And these repetitive actions are themselves influenced by (i) the height of the heel (as it changes the geometry of the foot and thus the potential points of impact); (ii) the positioning of the heel (as it also changes the point of heel impact, regardless of the foot length) and (iii) to a lesser extent, the length of the toe of the shoe (as it effectively lengthens the foot and thus the potential 'take off point' for the next step).

[FastFreddy2]

On 04/01/2016 at 2:00 AM, FastFreddy2 said:

Looking at buying a similar shoe from Office at a modest £65 as an alternative, the red patent ones I keep pointing out to Mrs Freddy as a potential 'pressie' are as usual, 'sold out' in my size.  Tonight I also found out why Office had/has two versions of the same shoe on offer: one is leather patent, the other PU patent. Had I realised this was the case, I would have bought the leather patent version some time ago, because I'm reluctant to spend £65 on a PU shoe. (Though I will if needs be.)

Obviously, I'll be keeping a watchful eye on the auctions.   

 

 

 

In the (what is nearly always) futile attempt to save myself a wad of money, I chased up Office for a pair of the leather patent shoes in London or the Home Counties. To my surprise, a pair was found, but some 40 miles from my home. I waited two days to decide what I would do, but went and bought them tonight. £65, in red leather patent.

Slow drive home via Westfield. 80 mile round trip, taking the better part of 6 hours all in, but some walking time involved at the mall. 

While I wasn't going to look at them until the morning, I had a brief look tonight. The euphoria had lasted a couple of hours, but it's not great news. The right shoe, while not being wrecked, has not been made as well as the left shoe, and there are minor marks of the toe cover. While I may have never really expected to keep these, (where would I wear them), owning them would have kept my errant/wistful/fanciful mind away from the JC Anouks. With the added bonus of keeping me £335 less poor. Putting that into perspective, for one pair of Anouks, I can buy 6 pairs of the Office shoes. 

Maybe I need to look at the PU version? 

Edited January 8, 2016 by FastFreddy2

[Puffer]

I looked briefly into the local (small) branch of Office a couple of days ago.   Reputed 'sale' in full swing but, as its shoes are expensive to start with, no worthwhile bargains apparent.   I did examine the red patent court (but not sure if leather or PVC).   The heel in size 7 was exactly 4.75", which is encouraging.   I didn't see any in size 8. 

[FastFreddy2]

3 hours ago, Puffer said:

I looked briefly into the local (small) branch of Office a couple of days ago.   Reputed 'sale' in full swing but, as its shoes are expensive to start with, no worthwhile bargains apparent.   I did examine the red patent court (but not sure if leather or PVC).   The heel in size 7 was exactly 4.75", which is encouraging.   I didn't see any in size 8. 

 

The 'best' bargains seem to be on-line.

 

 

I don't believe I've ever seem these in-store anywhere. The pair I have here, maybe the last UK8's they had, were bought for £12 plus delivery. The shoe has a 4¹⁵/₁₆ inch (125mm) heel, and is a bugger to get on care of the rear zipper. But those straps ensure the shoe won't be falling off while in use. Not sure if they are keepers yet (or if all those straps are staying) but a cheap high heeled shoe either way.

 

 

My £70 patent courts with 5¼" heel, now at £22, but OBVIOUSLY, no size 8's available. Plenty of 7's though.  I have only seen this style in one Office store recently, and that was a 'flagship' concession in the West End.

 

The red On Tops bought yesterday, have a 4¾" (123mm) heel, just as those you saw in a size 7. There is no stock on line of the the PU version in an 8 either. A red court in patent, isn't going to be an overly popular shoe I wouldn't have thought, so they are out of stock because they didn't buy many in. The Office On Top(s) range(s), has been as good to Office, as the Atlantic was for ALDO, 5, 6, or 7 years ago.  

 

As for costs, price up Dune shoes, or some of KG shoes.... Most knocking on the door of £200.  

 

[Puffer]

Some recent posts on HHP are relevant to the above discussion on heel height and position.   One newish male member who apparently favours 5"+ stilettos (even when doing building work etc!) comments as follows:   

I would say my Skyscraper shoes are comfortable......well as comfy as any 5.5" heel can be! The classic heel shape puts the centre of gravity nicely under your leg, so easier to walk in, and can be worn all day if you have the stamina. For anything higher I personally prefer something with a super arch such as Peter Chu/6 Inch Heels Forever.

He has recently bought shoes and boots from http://www.sky-scrapers.co.uk/index.php/ , which I note is offering a significant discount until end of January.   Another member recommends http://stores.ebay.co.uk/1969italiaboutique/ as a source of high (5.25") and slender stilettos (although with the heel sometimes placed a little more rearwards) that are very wearable, albeit expensive (unless a low-start auction item is secured).

I emphasise my usual disclaimer as to quality, wearability and transactional ease in both cases.

[FastFreddy2]

On 11/01/2016 at 11:19 AM, Puffer said:

Some recent posts on HHP are relevant to the above discussion on heel height and position.   One newish male member who apparently favours 5"+ stilettos (even when doing building work etc!) comments as follows:   

I would say my Skyscraper shoes are comfortable......well as comfy as any 5.5" heel can be! The classic heel shape puts the centre of gravity nicely under your leg, so easier to walk in, and can be worn all day if you have the stamina. For anything higher I personally prefer something with a super arch such as Peter Chu/6 Inch Heels Forever.

He has recently bought shoes and boots from http://www.sky-scrapers.co.uk/index.php/ , which I note is offering a significant discount until end of January.   Another member recommends http://stores.ebay.co.uk/1969italiaboutique/ as a source of high (5.25") and slender stilettos (although with the heel sometimes placed a little more rearwards) that are very wearable, albeit expensive (unless a low-start auction item is secured).

I emphasise my usual disclaimer as to quality, wearability and transactional ease in both cases.

It took me an age to find the relevant post on HHp.  

 

Right...... Regarding Sky-Scrapers, please read ALL of this >> clicky <<  Written almost 3 years ago, so things have changed a little. Now looks like Burlesque Blue has moved away from London too, at least the sales point has. Shame, as Southgate wasn't that far away, in fact it's closer than Islington. (And what was LSB many years ago.)

I'm wondering who is actually making the shoes. The fellas I saw 30+ years ago were not young men then?

 

"1969" .... Like the two (or more) who owned LSB, I think this might be one half of a broken partnership. A few years ago, I bought some boots from a reputable shoe/boot company in Italy. I knew them as "Renzi". 

 

Like some of those currently being sold on the '1969' label, these were a "buy a pair and we will ship the size you want" purchase. Their sales M.O. was to have the fixed price shoes and boots in the £300/£600 price range respectively, but to auction each type with starting money of (say) 99p. Of course these boots seldom went through the auction at less than £100, but they did sell at well below the fixed price boots on offer. I can't remember exactly what I paid, but with carriage it was a tad over £100. It all went through smoothly, with me even having a telephone conversation with a very helpful Italian lady. We agreed that since Italian sizing usually came up small, I should order an EU42. Sadly on my feet, they fitted more like an EU43. See back up the thread >> here <<. Plus, they were too high to wear anywhere but a bedroom. (And I don't wear my heels in the house at all.) And of course, they flapped around my skinny legs. As they are hand-made, I suppose I could have ordered a pair that were a bit more fitted, but I still wouldn't have been able to walk in them!

I did think about just swapping them for a smaller size that might fit, but it seemed pointless as I couldn't wear them out. They were sold on. The buyer was pleased with them, especially as they had red soles. 

 

 

At the time there were two similar Italian made/sold companies, but with distinctly different styles. At the time, the heel shape of the other brand; "1969" wasn't as attractive as the Renzi heel. I don't remember them doing any low start auctions, but they may have.

The Renzi's stopped being auctioned off, and for the most part (that I know of) their sales went to fixed priced only, at the prices I have indicated above. They changed their heel shape too, which to me, looked very unattractive.

 

 

 

The heel is long and thin, making the wearers heel look bulbous. As discussed elsewhere, the purpose of the thinner heel maybe to give the illusion of a higher heel? It might work, but it dramatically changes the flow of the line apparent in silhouette. More wearable too, but not a style for me.

 

 

At the time (3 years ago) the 1969 brand was of no interest, because of price and style. Having looked at both, I thought they shared the same address. They don't, but it's close. Same town, putting forward the idea of a broken partnership?

 

Had it not been for reading the info about their courts and pricing on HHp, I wouldn't be aware of the style and price changes at 1969. So thanks for that.  It looks like some of the new business expansion ideas toward 'glamour' clothing I used to see at "Renzi", has been included into the 1969 range. It also looks like 1969 brand is now using what was the redundant Renzi M.O. for achieving sales using the low start auction prices. Who knows?

Certainly must be the case with these two businesses, that some sharing must be going on, even if it's only at staff level. But it's an easy (if wrong) conclusion, that these two outfits started life as a partnership - assuming they aren't still? I notice on the main auction site, the same UK business often has two or three trading names, with the same or close to, business address. In my mind, it's a way on convincing the buyer they are making a choice of supplier, when in fact there isn't one. Not that the two Italian makers seem to share exactly the same styles. 

I shall have to give both makers a good look, to see if there's anything there I might want.  At money I can afford. 

 

P.S.

After sourcing information for the post, and I thought completing it, I find there is a THIRD seller of high heels in the same town! This can't be a coincidence surely?

The first and third company's must be almost neighbours?  And the third company sells boots in the original Renzi style, but in colours other than black. More "innovation", from a son or daughter perhaps? 

 

 

Photo styles, background etc etc - all the same. Hard not to draw a conclusion they are a related business.

 

 

 

 

Regarding the centre of gravity comment, it has me a little lost.

The centring of gravity involves the Tibia and Fibula lining up with the ankle, and in a heel, will likely pass just behind the ball of the foot. The higher the heel, the closer to the ball this might occur.

 

 

If the heel was at the centre of gravity, it would be all too easy to topple backwards surely? 

Though the further inboard (forward) the heel tip is, the shorter the "footprint", the easier a rolling motion for the foot and ankle while walking? This is likely important because unlike our natural flat-footed state, a heeled foot can't achieve the same rolling motion as it's effectively locked in the rear position. (Shape your foot would be in as it trailed you after the other leg made a forward stride.) This is entirely in keeping with a heel mechanically limiting rotation of the ankle and toe joints, that are usually used in walking 'naturally'.

Of course if the heel tip was moved too far forward to support a centre of gravity position, as indicated in the last picture, the wearer would likely fall backwards - as has also been mentioned by Puffer.

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by FastFreddy2

[Puffer]

Good detective work, Freddy!   And, if it is relevant to your re-write:   the recommendation in HHP to '1969' shoes was just that - and it may well be that the supplier is not (quite) the 'italiaboutique' outfit that I identified through a quick Google.   Maybe the label is shared or copied by others.

As to the centre of gravity, I don't think that the HHP poster was meaning that the heel directly influenced this.   He probably just meant (as we believe) that a more-forward heel takes the weight better and is more stable, i.e. it is closer to the c-o-g.   I'm not convinced that the c-o-g is exactly as you surmise (as body shape and weight, stance etc will have an influence) but that doesn't matter - it is the relative positions of c-o-g and heel, ball etc that govern stability and gait.

[FastFreddy2]

4 hours ago, Puffer said:

I'm not convinced that the c-o-g is exactly as you surmise (as body shape and weight, stance etc will have an influence) but that doesn't matter - it is the relative positions of c-o-g and heel, ball etc that govern stability and gait.

Which is dynamic when walking, anyway.

As far as 'the theory' goes, please feel free to experiment yourself.  If you can find a way to stand upright while having your centre of gravity passing through somewhere other than your ankle, you will be of great interest to medical science.      I believe there is very little latitude (in degrees) for an upright and motionless position. Someone who has flexible calves and knees, could and should be able to get their Tibia and Fibula tilted slightly backwards, canting the c-o-g line, but only as far as the ankle (to which those bones are held). After that, straight down 'cos that's how gravity works.  

I struggled to find pictures of women standing still in a high heel, to illustrate the relationship, and had to resort to using my own library of images in the end. But the ankle has to be between the ball of the foot and the rear position of a heel tip, or the wearer just falls over. The higher the heel, the closer the ankle position comes to being over the ball of the foot. When a heel is so high it is actually over the ball', if canting the Tib+Fib isn't done, better have your arms outstretched or you're going to need your nose fixed when it hits the ground. I think heavier people who might have more forward bulk, have to rely on that canting, or have to keep their knees bent to maintain the c-o-g position over their ankles. I see this knee bending often, when people are wearing ballet heels for example.

Please excuse the apparent jocular tone of my post. It was a short night. 

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by FastFreddy2

[Puffer]

Freddy:

1.  Your revised comments on the '1969' brand are interesting, if understandably inconclusive - for now.   It may be that the town in which these sellers are located is a centre of shoe-making, and/or that skilled artisans either flit between rival and neighbouring businesses or set up in opposition to them.   Equally, as you suggest, there may be some sort of a business or family relationship between the businesses, past or present.   Italy has clamped down on tax evasion in recent years (albeit mostly at a petty level - insisting in theory that an invoice is given for e.g. the purchase of an ice cream cornet!), but possibly a fragmented or divided business has (or had) some merit in avoiding or evading taxes or reducing financial exposure.   The main thing is that the '1969' shoes (wherever obtained) appear to be well thought of by some recent purchasers, regardless of cost.   One US customer (male and bearded) seems to have bought the 5.25" courts in a whole range of colours - and wears them outside in the company of his wife.   Good luck to him!

2.   If you think about it, an imaginary plumbline suspended from one's centre-of-gravity will not pass through the ankle(s) (or any other part of the legs/feet), however close together they are, but will lie on a vertical plane that passes through them.   And the 'plumbline' will shift a little in relation to ankles/feet whenever one's (a) c-o-g changes slightly because one gains or loses weight (diet or becoming pregnant); or (b) 'upright stance' varies slightly, as no-one stands erect in a perfect and unchanging manner.   But none of this really matters; we know when falling-over is likely and that shoe heels in different positions and/or of different heights will influence this.

[FastFreddy2]

11 minutes ago, Puffer said:

 

2.   If you think about it, an imaginary plumbline suspended from one's centre-of-gravity will not pass through the ankle(s) (or any other part of the legs/feet), however close together they are, but will lie on a vertical plane that passes through them.   And the 'plumbline' will shift a little in relation to ankles/feet whenever one's (a) c-o-g changes slightly because one gains or loses weight (diet or becoming pregnant); or (b) 'upright stance' varies slightly, as no-one stands erect in a perfect and unchanging manner.   But none of this really matters; we know when falling-over is likely and that shoe heels in different positions and/or of different heights will influence this.

 

"In theory" I would agree your principle is right, in that a plumbline replicating a c-o-g could be found almost anywhere. In practice, it has to be between heel tip and b-o-f or tipping is inevitable. Again in practice, the ankle is the fulcrum on which the load is kept vertical while motionless. When motion is involved, the heel/toe combination is much more involved. 

A test I doubt I'll ever make ....

3 inch diameter log/dowel about 12 inches in length, rested underneath a 12" wide by 18" long piece of half inch ply. The log/dowel has to be square to the ply during both tests, the test surface has to be solid and flat. Wearer with 5" traditional heels gets on the board, shifting the position of the board (with help) so they are balanced with the ply board perfectly horizontal. Position of their toes are marked on the ply so that the second test can mimic their b-o-f position, and the position of log/dowel is marked on ply board too. Second test, the heel wearer has on 5" heels but it has a set back heel. Same position of perfectly horizontal board is achieved. Board is marked again. I am going to be completely dumbfounded, if those marks identifying the log/dowel position, are anything other than in the same place.

 

[Puffer]

I think that our respective understandings are beginning to deviate, more through miscommunication than lack of mechanical knowledge.

I haven't suggested that you are wrong about the fore-and-aft tipping point.   The plumbline suspended from the c-o-g is merely indicating the vertical that you rightly identify - but which lies between the legs/feet, not within either of them.   And that imaginary plumbline also governs the propensity for sideways tipping.   In short, anything that causes the 'plumbline' to fall outside the support of the foot (which is essentially the span between the ball and the heel) will result in instability and toppling.   But the 'span' can be varied if the subject is wearing shoes that alter the rigidity or shape of the foot - e.g. a heel of a height and/or shape which shifts the rearward ground contact of the foot (which will reduce the span) or an inflexible sole and/or an extended toe (which will increase the span).   An extreme example of the latter is the music hall or circus performer who can lean well forward without toppling because he is wearing shoes with very long and rigid toes.   Although the diagrams are not too clear, the principles are explained here:  http://chestofbooks.com/health/anatomy/Human-Body-Construction/The-Attachment-Of-The-Lower-Extremities-To-The-Trunk.html

As to your 'experiment', I think you have over-complicated it.   You are in essence describing someone balancing whilst standing on a seesaw.   The simplest gadget would be a plank and log, much as you suggest, but with the plank screwed to the log so that it is in equilibrium when unloaded, and with a datum line drawn above the fulcrum (thus removing the need for any marking of those items on each test).   If the person then stands on the board (in various footwear) such that it remains in equilibrium (level) and the centre of the ball of his foot and the back of the shoe heel tip are both marked, one can see whether and to what extent the shoes alter his balance:   the span (ball-heel tip) will vary slightly according to the foreshortening effect of the shoes but the ratio between the two distances ball-datum and datum-heel will remain the same if your theory is correct.   (Note that using the toe-tips as a marker will not be accurate as the extra distance (toe-datum, rather than ball-datum) will upset the required ratio.)    But I do have my doubts - two shoes of identical heel-height but with the heel in slightly different positions must surely alter the ratio, as the overall span will be shorter for the 'forward' heel.   But our concern is not really with balance, but with ease of walking when heel position varies but height does not. 

That's quite enough applied mechanics for now, I must go for a lie-down on a truly horizontal bed - but doubtless will be kept awake by speculating on the effect of pillows of differing heights.   

[FastFreddy2]

1. At no time have I thought we were discussing L/R c-o-g, only fore/aft since heel position ought to only affect that (surely)? Any additional direction would create too many differentials, and we might already have too many. 

2. A direct quote from your link: "A vertical line through the center of gravity must fall within its base of support." We are discussing that position of b-o-f and heel tip. Can I 'rest my case'?  

3. Your 'simplified' version of my log/dowel is likely less dangerous, but needs no less marking, and doesn't seem to allow as much latitude for finding the position of equilibrium? By way of a go no-go gauge, it would work, and IS safer though.

4. This idea the b-o-f is a difficult thing to locate, surprises me. Here's why; While heel tips, ankle positions might vary in a shoe, the one thing that never changes is the position of the end of our longest toe. These HAVE to be on the ground, in a heel or out of a heel. The 'ball of the foot' is the last bit of skin touching a flat surface (usually floor) when we stand on our toes. That can be measured and recorded. It's a reference point only, and the end of our longest toe is the datum. When I have said "mark the toe position" I meant toe of foot, not toe of shoe. Since rise shape (long vs compressed) length of toe box etc all vary, finding the exact position of the b-o-f when fitted inside a shoe .... Toe of foot is a good datum. The other end of the "base of support" is the moving heel tip position of course.

My belief is, the movement of that heel tip location in a static position (ie standing still) affects the c-o-g so little, in practical terms the difference (if there is one) is immeasurable. I have proposed the ankle is the fulcrum. Given the lack of forward/back latitude possible in the 5-6ft above the ankle (in degrees), the difference on the other side of the fulcrum "base of support" will likely be minute. Or to be exact, several minutes (of angle ).   

 

Actually, an even simpler test: Can you tell the forward/aft position of the heel you are wearing, while standing still? I think unlikely.

The "feeling of a better c-o-g with a traditional heel", goes back to the very thing we have discussed before, as to ease of walking. With a dynamic c-o-g created while we purposely tip ourselves forward to create motion, it really doesn't seem to be pertinent. What that shorter base of support does do, is allow less effort in creating an easier tipping motion as we walk.

[Puffer]

I only mentioned 'sideways tipping' to emphasise the application of the c-o-g 'plumbline'; I agree that it is not directly relevant to our current considerations - although it is not something to be totally ignored when standing or walking - in heels and sober or otherwise!

I won't comment further on hypotheses or experiments as I believe we are both essentially saying the same thing, albeit reaching it by slightly different routes.

[FastFreddy2]

2 hours ago, Puffer said:

I won't comment further on hypotheses or experiments as I believe we are both essentially saying the same thing, albeit reaching it by slightly different routes.

Agreed. 

 

I've had a slightly better look at the 1969 range of courts, and it's been quite illuminating.

Here are two styles that meant their range was originally excluded from my interest about the time I was made aware of the Renzi boots:

 

 

Platforms, and long (comfortable) toe box (a la Rosa) but not good for walking in. Sadly.

 

But.......

At least two styles that are of interest!

 

The plastic shoes, made in China....

 

A nice looking shoe, but only listed in smaller sizes, so far as I can see. Typical of those coming from China.

 

But, their classic court, well ...... Jackpot!

 

Any size up to EU42 (or 43 depending on the listing), which is likely bigger than my shoe size, if experience with the Renzi style is anything to go by. 

The next issue .... Cost.   I'll have to keep an eye on the auctions, see what I might get a pair for.  "Feedback" suggests £55 with £15 carriage isn't uncommon. 

 

Edited January 13, 2016 by FastFreddy2

[Puffer]

Interesting 1969 research, Freddy.   For what it's worth, my opinion on the shoes shown (in order):

1.   An elegant shoe made ugly.   That turned-up platform makes it look so clumpy and the shape and position of the heel worsens it further.   Yuk!

2.   Basically, a very elegant (6"?) stiletto.   I like the long pointed toe but have to agree that it would not make for easy walking - even though Sarah of Rosa can manage hers!

3.   Fine - apart from that set-back heel.

4.   Fine again - but would be improved if the heel was just a tad more forward and the toebox was longer.  (The high heel and short toebox together make the foot appear rather too short - and I suspect one's toes are going to be somewhat compressed.)    If you do get these, Freddy - make sure you review them for us all.

[FastFreddy2]

2 hours ago, Puffer said:

4.   Fine again - but would be improved if the heel was just a tad more forward and the toebox was longer.  (The high heel and short toebox together make the foot appear rather too short - and I suspect one's toes are going to be somewhat compressed.)    If you do get these, Freddy - make sure you review them for us all.

There is/was a batch of shoes and boots at auction prices going through tonight (I was out doing PR for a landlord), and my trial bids were easily overtaken even though my bids were not small. (Small enough, obviously! )

If the 1969 M.O. continues for any length of time, I will acquire. The chap over at HHp likes them enough to have several pairs, so maybe the important bit after a successful bid, is getting the right size? I am thinking I should try for a court shoe first, as there's a smaller loss if I get the wrong size.

 

Regarding the "classic Rosa" toe-box style, it's wear (and tear) at the toe I'm more concerned about, rather than the walkability of the style. Perhaps I should have said "walking in them would seriously reduce their aesthetic appeal" as they would get damaged fairly quickly worn in the street? The cowboy style boot from Harley Davidson took me nearly 5 years to wear them out, and with the long(er) pointed toe, it was the toe that wore the most. My current fav's, the same style from M+S, are getting the same rate of wear in the same place. The Rosa style has an even longer toe box, and I can't help but wonder if the toes get scuffed up on the first or the second use.  Although I'm not a betting man, I think the odds are in my favour for putting money on them not getting past a third outing without scuffs.   They are I suspect, designed for wearing at the theatre, restaurant, or other upmarket gatherings. Not traipsing around shopping malls or high streets, which is where I do most of my high heel wearing. They do look comfortable though, with all that toe space, if a heel that high could ever be described as comfortable. 

Edited January 14, 2016 by FastFreddy2

[FastFreddy2]

I've now had a good look through all three groups of listings, and there is only one doing the auctions at a low start price. I'm thinking this might be going on because things are slow in the factory? (That time of year?)

Current selling prices, are not to be missed. 

[FastFreddy2]

Have had some PM's with '1969' about shoe sizes, and looks like I might actually want an EU41, though even that looks a bit on the long side?

Anyway, I've currently got about 5 chances to buy, if I bid high enough of course. If I get the right size court shoe, I'll then try for a boot if they are still available at sensible prices. "Sensible" will look like under £130 at the moment, assuming I can walk in the 5" courts.

 

 

[Heels]

Bought two new pairs since the new year. First paid bought on Ebay for £12. Listed as a size 9uk and being extra wide (EEE). Box the heels has them as a size 12us. Found to be far to big for me. Loose all the round my heel and can easy stick a finger down the back of my heel and the shoe. Yet still uncomfortable after a little while on my right foot again.

Second pair bought from Just Fab  website and paid  £44 for them  Can easy wear them all day around my flat with not foot pain and I only have to do up one strap when I go to wear them. Heel hieght is a true 5 inch and seem to be better made then I expected them to be. Now thinking of buying the other pair I posted on here..

Edited January 17, 2016 by Heels
Forgot to add photo.

[FastFreddy2]

If you can find a way of doing it, a photo with your feet (~or foot) in one of the Just Fab shoes would be a useful thing to see. 

I did read up on the "membership" qualifications for getting their shoes at £35 (or less). It seems you commit to buying one pair of shoes each month, with credit card deduction (or maybe D/C) being made on the 5th or 6th day of the month. You may cancel this commitment month by month, but it has to be during the 1st and 5th day of the respective period. I think this arrangement is called "continuous payment authority". Forget to cancel, you get charged whether you wanted shoes or not. If I remember, the 'charge' produces a 'store credit' if you do not use it by choosing something to own.

Other than the enticement of some discount on the first (or second) pair of shoes, I can't immediately see the obvious benefit of membership. If you remember to cancel the subsequent 11 payments, there is some advantage, but it's a lot of trouble/risk to save £9.

[Puffer]

55 minutes ago, FastFreddy2 said:

If you can find a way of doing it, a photo with your feet (~or foot) in one of the Just Fab shoes would be a useful thing to see. 

I did read up on the "membership" qualifications for getting their shoes at £35 (or less). It seems you commit to buying one pair of shoes each month, with credit card deduction (or maybe D/C) being made on the 5th or 6th day of the month. You may cancel this commitment month by month, but it has to be during the 1st and 5th day of the respective period. I think this arrangement is called "continuous payment authority". Forget to cancel, you get charged whether you wanted shoes or not. If I remember, the 'charge' produces a 'store credit' if you do not use it by choosing something to own.

Other than the enticement of some discount on the first (or second) pair of shoes, I can't immediately see the obvious benefit of membership. If you remember to cancel the subsequent 11 payments, there is some advantage, but it's a lot of trouble/risk to save £9.

Yes, it would be good to see the shoes 'in action'!

I agree that the Just Fab 'membership' is potentially problematic, and I would not be too happy at leaving a credit balance in the hands of a business that might not be around for long enough to use it up.   Caution needed.

[Heels]

I did think about going for the membership but knowing me I would forget to cancel the payment each month and I think you have to be a member for at least a year before you can leave. I didn't notice this on the terms and conditions but I sure there is a catch somewhere to stop you leaving straight after buying the first pair.

Will do another photo later this week. It;s not a five minute job for me to take a photo of me  wearing heels. I like to try and get the best possible photo I can do.

 

Edited January 18, 2016 by Heels

[FastFreddy2]

1 hour ago, Heels said:

I did think about going for the membership but knowing me I would forget to cancel the payment each month

I think that is the very reason they employ the procedure as part of the membership scheme. Many of us would do the same.

When I buy clothing or shoes with a 28 day returns policy, I try to do any returning ASAP. At the very least, I make sure I have to trip over anything I'm unsure about every day, so the money tied up in something I may not want isn't lost to me. This is especially true of postal returns. Some retailers stick to the letter of the (consumer) law, in that returns have to be advised to them within 14 days, and the goods returned within another 14 (or so). I once missed this with a retailer, who would not compromise, refusing even store credit against something I had not returned (back then) inside a 7 day period. While spending a LOT of money on my then hobby, they have not had a single penny from me since. I am unhappy to spend money with anyone/business entity, that would use legislation to ensure I'm an unhappy customer. 

Edited January 18, 2016 by FastFreddy2

[FastFreddy2]

On 16/01/2016 at 4:51 PM, FastFreddy2 said:

Anyway, I've currently got about 5 chances to buy, if I bid high enough of course. If I get the right size court shoe, I'll then try for a boot if they are still available at sensible prices. "Sensible" will look like under £130 at the moment, assuming I can walk in the 5" courts.

Now down to two chances .....

Missed a couple tonight, due to a small family crisis. The mother-in-law is again in hospital, and this time it's looking a bit serious. She's very old, and although I've known her a long time, there's not been a day I've been glad of her acquaintance. I don't wish her anything but a speedy recovery though, despite our mutual dislike. Really off-thread but.....  Doctor calls ambulance at 11.30am, ambulance arrives at 4.30pm... 

Time I got Mrs Freddy back from the hospital tonight, and then fed, two pairs had been sold. A blue pair for about £45. Obviously if I had bid they might have gone for a bit more, but there was no last minute 'flurry' with either pair, which surprised me. Someone has bought a handmade, all leather shoe, for £45 plus £15 carriage. Bargain? I'd say so. 

 

[FastFreddy2]

20 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

Time I got Mrs Freddy back from the hospital tonight, and then fed, two pairs had been sold.

 

Well, guess what .... Missed at least one pair tonight, same situation.

Been thinking all day I mustn't miss the last knockings of an auction, and where am I when it closes? Driving. (Bolaux .)

Of course I could have bid early, and hindsight is a wonderful thing..... I had already bid once and that had been surpassed, so it may have come to last minute 'tactical' bidding to ensure I won. What I am loathe to do is put some ridiculous amount in, to ensure I pay as much as possible.

The next two pairs are patent, and I'm out tomorrow night anyway, so no further bidding.